Crosstalk: Role of a public figure in moral crisis

According to information from the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, as county clerk Davis would have sworn two oaths prior to taking up her duties:

First, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth, and be faithful and true to the Commonwealth of Kentucky so long as I continue a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, to the best of my ability, the office of (County Clerk) according to law...so help me God.”

A second oath will have read: “I, (name), do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of Rowan County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court...and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

In refusing to issue a marriage license, Davis is quoted as doing so under the authority of God, her decision based on her beliefs as a member of the Apostolic Christian Church.

The church’s statement of faith includes the definition of marriage as “a lifelong union ordained of God in which a man and a woman of like mind, faith, and fellowship are united in the Lord in Holy Matrimony.”

One wonders how Davis justified giving license for the marriage of a man and a women of differing faiths?

Or even the remarriage of someone whose “lifelong union” ended in divorce and was now seeking to remarry?

Wouldn’t issuing those licenses have violated the tenants of her faith as well?

Christianity is often referenced in the founding documents of the United States, yet no specific offshoot or branch of the church was to be “state sanctioned,” church and state remaining separate.

Civil servants, working in the framework of the rule of law, are there to uphold the laws of their county, state and country regardless of personal or religious belief.

A judge may well disagree with a state mandated “mandatory minimum” sentence for someone found guilty of a crime —indeed, many judges have expressed frustration with those minimum sentences — yet they have but two choices: To follow the law and impose the sentence or to step down as a judge.

Davis had the same choice, and would have done better to have resigned rather than shirk her duties.

By RaeLynn Ricarte

It is simplistic to say that Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis should “follow the law of the land” in regard to issuing gay marriage licenses. What law? Congress has not passed a law recognizing same-sex marriage. Neither has Kentucky, where Davis lives and works.

In fact, 77 percent of Kentucky voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

In June, the Supreme Court tossed out the amendment adopted by 31 states and redefined marriage by a narrow five-to-four vote.

With that decision, the justices overturned hundreds of years of accepted law.

Now there appears to be no tolerance for either private business owners or government officials who don’t immediately adjust to this major cultural shift.

Davis has held her job for 27 years and apparentlyy has been able to conduct her official duties without any major conflict — until she ran afoul of the new norm.

It can be said that, because Davis is a civil servant, she does not have the right to exercise her faith at work. But, if you look at the Bible, which is where Davis said she goes for insight, her stance is supported.

In Mark 12:17, Jesus was asked by the Pharisees, the religious leaders of the Jews, whether the people were legally bound to pay taxes to the government.

Jesus replied, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

There are multiple verses in the Bible against homosexuality so Davis felt her beliefs were being put to the test.

She decided that “God’s moral law conflicts with my job duties,” and chose to go to jail instead of conceding to the demands of the court.

Numerous Christian judges are now following the same path and facing sanctions.

I fear that if some accommodation isn’t made to allow Christians to opt out of work-related duties that conflict with their religious beliefs, the polarization of Americans is going to deepen to the point that it becomes another full-fledged civil war.

It is the job of Congress, comprised of men and women who are elected by their respective states, to make the law. It is the role of the Supreme Court to interpret those laws as close to the constitutional intent of the founders as possible.

It is not the role of justices to become activists and change the law to suit their own personal passions and agendas.

The founders worried about that possibility because it would set the stage for oppression.

Is that where we are at now?

If we are going to punish everyone who does not go along with this major shift in values, then churches will be next.

Pastors and their congregations better get ready to lose their nonprofit status if they continue to preach that homosexuality is a sin.